This idea that ‘its there to sell newspapers, to make money’ as if that is the end of the discussion is silly. We dont say ‘That guy on the corner is there to sell drugs, to make money… ok, fair enough.’ We have to ask is what they are doing to make money legal, is it damaging, is it a good thing, etc?
very poor quality of debate on both sides of the argument. The liberals were not really hitting the Daily Mail hard enough and the Daily Mail side were simply arguing 'we write what our poor lower middle class want and need'. Very low quality, totally shocked by the level of debate on what is a newspaper posing as the best of British values, but is in fact appealing to the worst parts in all of us.
always over 50, never have any friends, everybody who has to work with the miserable cunts hates them, miserable home lives, boring as fuck, never have ANYTHING interesting to say, just not fun people to be around in any way
Denis Daly No. Conservatives are just an opinion. I would agree if it was alt right ideas. But conservatives are as happy as the left. Just the people on that site are negative and nasty.
In pretty much any iqsquared debate you'll know which side to choose by picking the opposite of the people doing the appeal to emotion and personal stories.
Dearest Richard Coles, How beautiful a Human You are. If I were ever to go into 'battle' I would ask You to be My 'right hand Man' . I would hope that YOU would accept. Enough said.
The reader is the real trouble with the Daily Mail. Without the reader, the Daily Mail wouldn't exist. As for women working at the Daily Mail, does not equate that the Daily Mail represents women's rights.
I can't think for myself, So I will listen to you... You have made me feel so insecure that about my life, I can't think for myself, so I will listen to you.Understanding Narcs!
Fellow Internet correspondents, let me share with you a message I received yesterday from the Daily Mail: "Hello, Your account has been permanently de-activated for going against the Community Guidelines. You are no longer allowed to post on the Daily Mail or other Associated Newspapers Ltd sites using this or any other user. Please be advised that should you post again we reserve the right to contact your ISP/employer and seek that action is taken against you. Regards, Senior Community Editor Daily Mail" Was it something I said? Now I really don't know what I could have blogged to warrant this reaction, after all the DM often delete a contribution. But that's hardly the issue here. This sounds like a threat to me, albeit an empty one. I haven't had an employer for over 50 years. And as for contact your ISP, do grow up Mr. Senior Community Editor. Threating to “contact your ISP/employer and seek that action is taken against you” is outrageous and smacks of infringement of civil rights and civil liberties. But in Police State UK, perhaps that's the way things are going. I’m tempted to inform the owners of the Daily Mail, Mr. “Senior Community Editor’s" employers, and advise that they have a loose canon on their staff. Can anyone provide me with the identity of Daily Mail owners or even the name of the Senior Community Editor? Let's name and shame shall we! Jack, the retired Japan Alps Brit
The problem isn't the Daily Mail, the problem is people buying it and giving it attention therefore allowing it to spread it's highly contreversial views to all corners of soceity. You don't ban the paper you ignore it, therefore it's readers go down, their sponsors leave and it goes out of business. Only us humans can't resist shouting an insult or taking a shot at it aka giving it attention, because it makes us feel good we spoke out against a contreversial paper. Ignore it, don't give it attention.
'Highly controversial views' - perhaps the views are actually common and its your views that are controversial. The fact you don't agree with its opinions doesn't invalidate them.
Edward kirkhope I personally don't think it's controversial it's just a paper picking side and then going very right wing, but I think it's controversial because a lot of people utterly despise it but on the other hand a lot support it. It's not like papers such as the Independent, people who disagree with the independent don't hate it they just respectfully disagree, with the daily mail I think it bring out a lot of hatred in its opposers
Daily Mail was recently voted 'Newspaper of the Year' by the whole of Fleet Street. This is the seventh time they have won that accolade, more than any other title.
It is in the human DNA (survial of the species behavior !) - If you want to _unify a large group of people_ that do not intimately know each other (close knit communities) haven a _common enemy_ is the easiest and most powerful way to have group cohesion, to emotionally engage people and _rally them behind an agenda._ That is the _only way_ one can quickly unify really large numbers - for instance if those at the top want to manipulate those they rule over (openly or covertly) to go to war with them. After all that includes the risk of being harmed, dying, the necessity to kill and harm foreigners, and many hardships. So the incentive, the motivation better be good. The Daily Mail also uses that instinct to make and secure profits. If people banded together on an agenda to improve the live for the little people (natives, migrants EU and otherwise) they would be incredibly powerful. Of course that too would be a business model for a newspaper, holding the government to account - when they let the people in to make sure IT WORKS FOR EVERYONE. Neither NEOLIBERAL LABOUR nor the Tories had any interest in REGULATION immigration and easing the tensions by properly funding the necessary public programs. but not when it is owned by rich people). And it is more work and somewhat more instable to unite people behind something to FIGHT FOR. _Fighting UNITED AGAINST_ is the more powerful instinct and it can be whipped up right away. (Social cohesion was very important in the small groups of hunters and gatherers, being "against" and stand united they defended the vulnerable from predators, wildfires, going after the big prey, ….
Newspapers are a direct reflection of the level of education of a country. Tabloid dont exist in much of europe where education systems reach out to all people, rich and poor. Around half of British university students come from the British private school system (curiously known to Britons as public schools) which represents 10% of high school students. This means that 90% of students, those who graduate from free schools, are 10 times less likely to get a high quality university education than if their parents had been able to afford private tuitions. The Daily Mail benefits directly from this sad fact. As my american friends say when they visit the UK: when did Britons stop speaking english? The sad truth is they never learned (except for the aforesaid 10%). Britain is unique in its disregard for its citizens. Many recent spectacular examples of that from the Windrush scandal to those flammable high rise buildings, a much lower life expectancy, a terribly bad public healthcare for the 90% (while the top 10% can afford excellent private healthcare) and Brexit. Britain is a country made by the top 10% for the top 10%. The rest are Daily Mail readers.
As much as the DM provokes and spreads falsehoods, totally agree with the first man against the motion. They hold various areas of society to account better than any. The guardian would be dead and buried long before they would say a word about the misuse of public funds if not perpetrated by a private company.
People "love to hate". There is a certain morbid enjoyment in feeling annoyed and being given licence to look down on "the other". Moreover: Anger is a more empowering, reviving emotion than feeling helpless and confused. ("Justice can fight better for its cause when righteous anger lends a helping hand.") Yes, newspapers are in it to sell. (But then drugs, porn, .. a lot of things sell well). Btw: even in the days when "print" was still doing well established newspapers got 30 % of their revenue from selling the papers and 70 % from advertisers - in some countries like Austria they also get public funding to help free speech, etc.). so the product that "was sold" was alway "access to the mind of the readers" - and it was sold to the advertisers. And one way to attract many readers that are necessary for the profits is to appeal to their instincts and the lowest denominators. ("Othering" and scapegoating CAN be promoted very successfully - it DOES WORK - it is part of the human psyche. That is no reason one _should_ appeal to it.) Sex sells - yes, see porn, see advertising industry - does that mean a newspaper should use that ? Another way mainstream media are important: They help to shape public opinion. In case the owners of the newspaper are rich people they can make sure the policies that benefit THEM get the megaphone. The yellow press can also be useful to deflect the anger and attention of citizens that suffer fromIn that way they are VERY usuful for the ruling elites - and there is a reason the lobbies and the CIA infiltrate mainstream media. With the internet mainstream media lost control of the narrative partially. The ruling class and media are highly irritated. So now "fake news" are the pretext to reign in the genie that jumped out of the bottle.
DM talks about migrants - the symptom of neoliberalism - in order no NOT have to talk about neoliberalism. Serves the agenda of the few incl. their rich owners AND the sell their rag. - If you want to unify a large group of poeple that do not intimately know each other (close knit communities) haven a _common enemy_ is the easiest and most powerful way to have group cohesion, to emotionally engage people and _rally them behind an agenda._
Daily Mail employee: the DM is for the people who have to keept their money together, immigration brings their wages down, schools, houses ... - so.... the DM constantly write how the government better fund Social housing and the NHS better, that there MUST be a minimum wage and worker protection, has a crusade against the zero hour contracts, and has been askind the government for years to use the possibilities they have under EU law to reduce immigration ... amiright ?? Nope - their rich owners profit of these conditionas like all of the upper class, but they correctly identify that there is a disgruntled segment = target audience. And by appeling to their worst instincts - kicking down instead of kicking upwards they a) make money b) secure the conditions in society which are allegedly caused by the immigrants. they talk about migrants - the symptom of neoliberalism - in order no NOT have to talk about neoliberalism.
The reason why the daily mail is widely read is quite simply they let readers express views on the comments section without moderation....People are free to speak. The guardian on the other hand doesn't do comments very well. Comments are carefully selected, carefully controlled to certain articles and heavily moderated.. The guardian is just a middle clas loony lefty, anti British echo chamber. Ironically the BBC has a history of recruiting from the guardian
The Daily Mail is popular because it panders to the insecurity of xenophobia and loves patting (itself) its readers on the back for fixing all manner of things it brought to their attention, most of which happened entirely out of its control. It's a publication that preys on the inattentive and wary, and reinforces cultural bigotry, isolationism and nationalistic jingoism.
Well call them what you want, They at least don't bow when it comes to corporate shilling which you clearly do and at least talk about the killings and connection to arms deals britain has in the middle east while placating the public with an abhorrent miasma of lies.
Why is it that debate moderators must always signal where which side they'd be on? An impartial moderator robustly challenges all parties with us hardly noticing he's there. Mr Ahmed opens the discussion with facetious comments about the Daily Mail. I don't read the DM and can't imagine I'd ever want to rely on it for my news but why is it that liberals (I'm a liberal) want to shut down opinions they don't like? There's a nasty trend in the US, throughout europe (but especially in Sweden and Germany) where outspoken opinions that counter official government and liberal narratives are shut down or even prosecuted. Increasingly an unsettling number of people are being prosecuted for having the wrong opinions about Islam or immigration. Austria, Netherlands, France, Germany and Sweden have all prosecuted public officials or figures that oppose government policy or the liberal line. This debate wasn't particularly impressive. A lot of long winded appeals to emotion and very little of substance. As long as the DM sells copies it will keep going. It apparently has the highest number of hits worldwide for any media daily.
Some very eloquent rhetoric but holy crap was this an awful debate! Really clever people but the long winded meanderings and hyperbole was incredibly overkill
My 'great' grandad hung doctors - different days - I'm PC (Passive & Calm) : until we - SHARMA (Snap : in Hegemonic Austerity of Relentless Murderous Agro) - people dead 9 year sooner - 6 year of ultra-violence economics - had 10,000 customers.in business - every sector - exported : 5O countries - few left : fabricator of funeral furnaces - golf shop - pony vet - Dragons' Den stars aren't rowdy - 2016 May freed one - confessed child rape with 3 witnesses *R > G*
I find the Daily Mail laughable. Just as I find the Guardian laughable. However it's my belief people are attracted to their news sources not for information but to have their personal prejudices confirmed. This does seem to be a concept BBC and Guardian types simply refuse to understand.
So DM stories how the NHS does not work - sure ! - Informing the readers how the NHS had the _leanest budget_ for a wealthy nation (among the lowest worldwide, certainly in Europe, it is not even close). Nope ! And that THEN the Tories had started DEFUNDING that highly cost-efficient system. The NHS has been over the course of 10 years run into the ground. Either for fierce ideological reasons or (and that is my assumption) to make the piece of the pie available for the buddies of the Tories. The "investors" who could not make a profit so far (apart from investments in pharma). Healthcare is 7 - 11 % of the GDP in any wealthy country (17 % in the insance private for profit U.S. system). That is a LOT of the economy. With the NHS services are provided and the people who do the work have wages and (should have) orderly work conditions. BUT: no one is going to make a huge profit of something that the consumers / patients have no choice but using. Healthcare is not a "nice to have, can do without service" which one can forego if one thinks the service is not good, or whoever delivers it rips off the public. Or the fact that the Tories simply destroyed the supply of UK trained doctors and nurses. Limiting the open spots for training (nurses) or making it very costly to become a doctor. A recent Independent article: NHS recruited 100 doctors in India (*) they were well qualified BUT 40 of them were refused the work permits. The NHS says they NEED those doctors. (* way to go for a first world country: stealing the experts that a developing country has trained at their costs, because they are too greedy, or too stupid to plan 10 years ahead. And if one starts out in medicine today it takes at least 10 years to be ready to go as doctor. The well trained doctors CAN leave the U.K., the NHS does have a shortage because the "economically resposible" allegedly "conservative" government was incapable or unwilling to predict that new doctors would be needed. The actions of the Tories show that they do not care if the NHS works for the population - the politicians have private services, (and the Blairites could not be bothered to scream bloody murder !) And it is not like the DM would call them out on it (which would be quite powerful). No - the _owners_ of the DM are part of the _investor class._ They can't wait that the NHS is sufficiently undermined to "justify" privatization "as the only solution" to "save" it. Which means then could the profiteers could - finally, finally - get their hands on that part of the economy.
In a modern, civilized society, leftists like you shouldn't be allowed to exist, because your suicidal pro-Islam and anti-west viewpoints are destroying our nations.
+TavernSenses And that's a good thing? Freedom of the press is a vital pillar of a free society. The unpleasantness associated with our newspapers is an unfortunate side effect but I wouldn't change it because the alternative is terrifying. Legislation that gave the ability of our political class to crush dissent with costly, drawn out litigation would signal the beginning of the end of free speech and liberty in Britain. If this is the case in Belgium, maybe that explains its appalling problems...
The campaign they have been running for the last few months has been all but inciting violence against LGBT people, they know JUST where to stop short in legal terms, just utter, utter cunts
"Mail readers are decent people"
One glance at the Mail's online comments section is enough to immediately disprove that notion.
You seem to conflate conformism for decency. One look at the Guardian and the BBC's headlines prove that they are the filth of the fourth estate
This idea that ‘its there to sell newspapers, to make money’ as if that is the end of the discussion is silly. We dont say ‘That guy on the corner is there to sell drugs, to make money… ok, fair enough.’ We have to ask is what they are doing to make money legal, is it damaging, is it a good thing, etc?
The Daily Mail is like reading the German press circa 1936
@suburben yobbo If you're politically illiterate, you read the Daily Mail.
@suburben yobbo The Daily Mail is a rag.
very poor quality of debate on both sides of the argument. The liberals were not really hitting the Daily Mail hard enough and the Daily Mail side were simply arguing 'we write what our poor lower middle class want and need'. Very low quality, totally shocked by the level of debate on what is a newspaper posing as the best of British values, but is in fact appealing to the worst parts in all of us.
In the last block of flats I lived in I heard the Daily Mail reading old man upstairs have a fall and call for help ............. It never came :D
The delusion of the two people against this motion is astonishing!
Its easy to spot a DM reader............................... they never smile
always over 50, never have any friends, everybody who has to work with the miserable cunts hates them, miserable home lives, boring as fuck, never have ANYTHING interesting to say, just not fun people to be around in any way
Thats quiet true. There is good research to show that conservative minded people tend to be grumpy, some even angry.
Denis Daly No. Conservatives are just an opinion. I would agree if it was alt right ideas. But conservatives are as happy as the left. Just the people on that site are negative and nasty.
@@illiteratethug3305 lol..I wonder what you would say about todays labour party and the Left :D
In pretty much any iqsquared debate you'll know which side to choose by picking the opposite of the people doing the appeal to emotion and personal stories.
Dearest Richard Coles, How beautiful a Human You are.
If I were ever to go into 'battle' I would ask You to be My 'right hand Man' .
I would hope that YOU would accept.
Enough said.
The reader is the real trouble with the Daily Mail. Without the reader, the Daily Mail wouldn't exist. As for women working at the Daily Mail, does not equate that the Daily Mail represents women's rights.
Thank god for the Guardian and the Independent which are always correct.
Reports #IN - am I correct : you *R* : 0 Subscriber - troll sock - did : _Theresa May_ free *child rapist* - in 2016 that CONFESSED - mit 3 witnesses - TUT TUT *Conservative HOME* Secretary - now PM (Paedophile Messiah) *R > G*
The questions were much better than much of the debate.
I can't think for myself, So I will listen to you... You have made me feel so insecure that about my life, I can't think for myself, so I will listen to you.Understanding Narcs!
Fellow Internet correspondents, let me share with you a message I received yesterday from the Daily Mail:
"Hello,
Your account has been permanently de-activated for going against the Community Guidelines.
You are no longer allowed to post on the Daily Mail or other Associated Newspapers Ltd sites using this or any other user. Please be advised that should you post again we reserve the right to contact your ISP/employer and seek that action is taken against you.
Regards,
Senior Community Editor
Daily Mail"
Was it something I said? Now I really don't know what I could have blogged to warrant this reaction, after all the DM often delete a contribution. But that's hardly the issue here. This sounds like a threat to me, albeit an empty one. I haven't had an employer for over 50 years. And as for contact your ISP, do grow up Mr. Senior Community Editor.
Threating to “contact your ISP/employer and seek that action is taken against you” is outrageous and smacks of infringement of civil rights and civil liberties. But in Police State UK, perhaps that's the way things are going. I’m tempted to inform the owners of the Daily Mail, Mr. “Senior Community Editor’s" employers, and advise that they have a loose canon on their staff. Can anyone provide me with the identity of Daily Mail owners or even the name of the Senior Community Editor? Let's name and shame shall we!
Jack, the retired Japan Alps Brit
Funny from a newspaper that is against cancel culture
Terrible drunken, slurred speech by Roger. He kept repeating himself.
The problem isn't the Daily Mail, the problem is people buying it and giving it attention therefore allowing it to spread it's highly contreversial views to all corners of soceity. You don't ban the paper you ignore it, therefore it's readers go down, their sponsors leave and it goes out of business. Only us humans can't resist shouting an insult or taking a shot at it aka giving it attention, because it makes us feel good we spoke out against a contreversial paper. Ignore it, don't give it attention.
'Highly controversial views' - perhaps the views are actually common and its your views that are controversial. The fact you don't agree with its opinions doesn't invalidate them.
Edward kirkhope I personally don't think it's controversial it's just a paper picking side and then going very right wing, but I think it's controversial because a lot of people utterly despise it but on the other hand a lot support it. It's not like papers such as the Independent, people who disagree with the independent don't hate it they just respectfully disagree, with the daily mail I think it bring out a lot of hatred in its opposers
Controversial? So you would rather have a conforming society led on a leash like sheep?
A profoundly stupid motion. The trouble with this country is a newspaper? Is this debate in Turkey or the UK?
'The Mail is anti establishment and anti tory party..' lol 51:21
I wonder how many Daily Mail readers have watched this. They probably opted for reading the Daily Mail instead.
What about the BBC's coverage of the Rotherham grooming scandal?...and the Jimmy Savile report???..BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES!!!!
Now do The Guardian
Daily Mail was recently voted 'Newspaper of the Year' by the whole of Fleet Street. This is the seventh time they have won that accolade, more than any other title.
I think the problem is that people are being conditioned to be lazy and mindless. People need to start giving a shit. Have some energy for christ sake
it's easier to just blame all our problems on immigrants and not do any research or anything
The problem is with The Guardian!
Considering recent developments I think theirs an arguement for having them up for treason.
It is in the human DNA (survial of the species behavior !) - If you want to _unify a large group of people_ that do not intimately know each other (close knit communities) haven a _common enemy_ is the easiest and most powerful way to have group cohesion, to emotionally engage people and _rally them behind an agenda._
That is the _only way_ one can quickly unify really large numbers - for instance if those at the top want to manipulate those they rule over (openly or covertly) to go to war with them. After all that includes the risk of being harmed, dying, the necessity to kill and harm foreigners, and many hardships.
So the incentive, the motivation better be good.
The Daily Mail also uses that instinct to make and secure profits.
If people banded together on an agenda to improve the live for the little people (natives, migrants EU and otherwise) they would be incredibly powerful.
Of course that too would be a business model for a newspaper, holding the government to account - when they let the people in to make sure IT WORKS FOR EVERYONE. Neither NEOLIBERAL LABOUR nor the Tories had any interest in REGULATION immigration and easing the tensions by properly funding the necessary public programs.
but not when it is owned by rich people). And it is more work and somewhat more instable to unite people behind something to FIGHT FOR.
_Fighting UNITED AGAINST_ is the more powerful instinct and it can be whipped up right away. (Social cohesion was very important in the small groups of hunters and gatherers, being "against" and stand united they defended the vulnerable from predators, wildfires, going after the big prey, ….
Wait a minute... he was never in the Commodores!
voiskumbeaver see him dancing on utube with wee jimmy Somerville the communards
That pesky freedom of the press 'ey?
When are they doing "The trouble with the remoaning lieing BBC"
The Tory mouth piece BBC ?
Newspapers are a direct reflection of the level of education of a country. Tabloid dont exist in much of europe where education systems reach out to all people, rich and poor. Around half of British university students come from the British private school system (curiously known to Britons as public schools) which represents 10% of high school students. This means that 90% of students, those who graduate from free schools, are 10 times less likely to get a high quality university education than if their parents had been able to afford private tuitions. The Daily Mail benefits directly from this sad fact. As my american friends say when they visit the UK: when did Britons stop speaking english? The sad truth is they never learned (except for the aforesaid 10%). Britain is unique in its disregard for its citizens. Many recent spectacular examples of that from the Windrush scandal to those flammable high rise buildings, a much lower life expectancy, a terribly bad public healthcare for the 90% (while the top 10% can afford excellent private healthcare) and Brexit. Britain is a country made by the top 10% for the top 10%. The rest are Daily Mail readers.
As much as the DM provokes and spreads falsehoods, totally agree with the first man against the motion. They hold various areas of society to account better than any. The guardian would be dead and buried long before they would say a word about the misuse of public funds if not perpetrated by a private company.
People "love to hate". There is a certain morbid enjoyment in feeling annoyed and being given licence to look down on "the other". Moreover: Anger is a more empowering, reviving emotion than feeling helpless and confused. ("Justice can fight better for its cause when righteous anger lends a helping hand.") Yes, newspapers are in it to sell. (But then drugs, porn, .. a lot of things sell well).
Btw: even in the days when "print" was still doing well established newspapers got 30 % of their revenue from selling the papers and 70 % from advertisers - in some countries like Austria they also get public funding to help free speech, etc.).
so the product that "was sold" was alway "access to the mind of the readers" - and it was sold to the advertisers. And one way to attract many readers that are necessary for the profits is to appeal to their instincts and the lowest denominators.
("Othering" and scapegoating CAN be promoted very successfully - it DOES WORK - it is part of the human psyche. That is no reason one _should_ appeal to it.)
Sex sells - yes, see porn, see advertising industry - does that mean a newspaper should use that ?
Another way mainstream media are important:
They help to shape public opinion. In case the owners of the newspaper are rich people they can make sure the policies that benefit THEM get the megaphone. The yellow press can also be useful to deflect the anger and attention of citizens that suffer fromIn that way they are VERY usuful for the ruling elites - and there is a reason the lobbies and the CIA infiltrate mainstream media.
With the internet mainstream media lost control of the narrative partially. The ruling class and media are highly irritated. So now "fake news" are the pretext to reign in the genie that jumped out of the bottle.
DM talks about migrants - the symptom of neoliberalism - in order no NOT have to talk about neoliberalism. Serves the agenda of the few incl. their rich owners AND the sell their rag. - If you want to unify a large group of poeple that do not intimately know each other (close knit communities) haven a _common enemy_ is the easiest and most powerful way to have group cohesion, to emotionally engage people and _rally them behind an agenda._
Haha. Where was this filmed? At the Royal Geogrpahicaaammdasjn93gpwfmsc.;lvm Society, of course.
Indian call centres; staying over there, taking our jobs.
I love the minister.
The second daily mail guy was way more articulate
Pink is so simple.
Daily Mail employee: the DM is for the people who have to keept their money together, immigration brings their wages down, schools, houses ... - so.... the DM constantly write how the government better fund Social housing and the NHS better, that there MUST be a minimum wage and worker protection, has a crusade against the zero hour contracts, and has been askind the government for years to use the possibilities they have under EU law to reduce immigration ... amiright ?? Nope - their rich owners profit of these conditionas like all of the upper class, but they correctly identify that there is a disgruntled segment = target audience.
And by appeling to their worst instincts - kicking down instead of kicking upwards they
a) make money
b) secure the conditions in society which are allegedly caused by the immigrants.
they talk about migrants - the symptom of neoliberalism - in order no NOT have to talk about neoliberalism.
Time *IS* mon€y : no paper$ - no TV - list€n to radio not - Daily Mail 'sounds' from this a - *LBC* (Loud Bubble of Chaos) *R > G*
DM is owned by abyssal forces.
I fucking hate the Daily Mail
daily mail readers like it. democracy by choice.
The reason why the daily mail is widely read is quite simply they let readers express views on the comments section without moderation....People are free to speak.
The guardian on the other hand doesn't do comments very well. Comments are carefully selected, carefully controlled to certain articles and heavily moderated.. The guardian is just a middle clas loony lefty, anti British echo chamber. Ironically the BBC has a history of recruiting from the guardian
You are a silly man
The Daily Mail is popular because it panders to the insecurity of xenophobia and loves patting (itself) its readers on the back for fixing all manner of things it brought to their attention, most of which happened entirely out of its control. It's a publication that preys on the inattentive and wary, and reinforces cultural bigotry, isolationism and nationalistic jingoism.
Mark Gable Funny because every comment I've sent is quickly banned. Yet negative, harsh nasty comments aren't....the daily mail is just as worse.
Well call them what you want, They at least don't bow when it comes to corporate shilling which you clearly do and at least talk about the killings and connection to arms deals britain has in the middle east while placating the public with an abhorrent miasma of lies.
Why is it that debate moderators must always signal where which side they'd be on? An impartial moderator robustly challenges all parties with us hardly noticing he's there. Mr Ahmed opens the discussion with facetious comments about the Daily Mail. I don't read the DM and can't imagine I'd ever want to rely on it for my news but why is it that liberals (I'm a liberal) want to shut down opinions they don't like? There's a nasty trend in the US, throughout europe (but especially in Sweden and Germany) where outspoken opinions that counter official government and liberal narratives are shut down or even prosecuted. Increasingly an unsettling number of people are being prosecuted for having the wrong opinions about Islam or immigration. Austria, Netherlands, France, Germany and Sweden have all prosecuted public officials or figures that oppose government policy or the liberal line. This debate wasn't particularly impressive. A lot of long winded appeals to emotion and very little of substance. As long as the DM sells copies it will keep going. It apparently has the highest number of hits worldwide for any media daily.
Some very eloquent rhetoric but holy crap was this an awful debate! Really clever people but the long winded meanderings and hyperbole was incredibly overkill
+Kris Driver classic mom discussion tactic: argument by sustained white noise.
nimium1955 lol well put
Is the common man rowdy? What a bad argument!
My 'great' grandad hung doctors - different days - I'm PC (Passive & Calm) : until we - SHARMA (Snap : in Hegemonic Austerity of Relentless Murderous Agro) - people dead 9 year sooner - 6 year of ultra-violence economics - had 10,000 customers.in business - every sector - exported : 5O countries - few left : fabricator of funeral furnaces - golf shop - pony vet - Dragons' Den stars aren't rowdy - 2016 May freed one - confessed child rape with 3 witnesses *R > G*
Daily Mail doesn't go far enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roger Alton would be more convincing if he wasn't reading from his notes.
he'd also be more convincing if he could actually speak clearly.
Chaired by a guy called Camel
Is this a serious debate? Jesus Christ
I find the Daily Mail laughable. Just as I find the Guardian laughable. However it's my belief people are attracted to their news sources not for information but to have their personal prejudices confirmed. This does seem to be a concept BBC and Guardian types simply refuse to understand.
Pity Zoe Williams does the 'upward inflexion' so mucW e
Everything needed to understand the decline of the West is evident in this one meeting.
A gay priest.
What an absurd debating topic.
So DM stories how the NHS does not work - sure ! - Informing the readers how the NHS had the _leanest budget_ for a wealthy nation (among the lowest worldwide, certainly in Europe, it is not even close). Nope ! And that THEN the Tories had started DEFUNDING that highly cost-efficient system.
The NHS has been over the course of 10 years run into the ground. Either for fierce ideological reasons or (and that is my assumption) to make the piece of the pie available for the buddies of the Tories. The "investors" who could not make a profit so far (apart from investments in pharma).
Healthcare is 7 - 11 % of the GDP in any wealthy country (17 % in the insance private for profit U.S. system). That is a LOT of the economy. With the NHS services are provided and the people who do the work have wages and (should have) orderly work conditions.
BUT: no one is going to make a huge profit of something that the consumers / patients have no choice but using. Healthcare is not a "nice to have, can do without service" which one can forego if one thinks the service is not good, or whoever delivers it rips off the public.
Or the fact that the Tories simply destroyed the supply of UK trained doctors and nurses. Limiting the open spots for training (nurses) or making it very costly to become a doctor.
A recent Independent article: NHS recruited 100 doctors in India (*) they were well qualified BUT 40 of them were refused the work permits. The NHS says they NEED those doctors.
(* way to go for a first world country: stealing the experts that a developing country has trained at their costs, because they are too greedy, or too stupid to plan 10 years ahead. And if one starts out in medicine today it takes at least 10 years to be ready to go as doctor.
The well trained doctors CAN leave the U.K., the NHS does have a shortage because the "economically resposible" allegedly "conservative" government was incapable or unwilling to predict that new doctors would be needed.
The actions of the Tories show that they do not care if the NHS works for the population - the politicians have private services, (and the Blairites could not be bothered to scream bloody murder !)
And it is not like the DM would call them out on it (which would be quite powerful).
No - the _owners_ of the DM are part of the _investor class._
They can't wait that the NHS is sufficiently undermined to "justify" privatization "as the only solution" to "save" it.
Which means then could the profiteers could - finally, finally - get their hands on that part of the economy.
10:28 Is that Douglas Murray?
Did Kamal Ahmed learn English by studying Boris Johnson's speech?
Free press anyone?
Yeah, we're free to say what we like about Daily Mail readers, I'd like to see them deported.
This is a ridiculous reason for a debate on the best selling UK newspaper.
Uh
VOTE OUT VOTE FREEDOM GOOD BYE EU AND DONT COME BACK VOTE OUT
It is just a product: do not buy it!
1:32:20
One thing is clear... this debate makes perfectly clear what is wrong with the UK. Not sure it is the Daily Mail, though.
...
Ah, there we have the "silent" patriotic majority.
This is the most bombastic, painfully boring debate I have ever seen. That is all.
In a modern, civilised society, pseudo news sources, like the Daily Mail and Express, shouldn't be allowed to exist.
In a modern, civilized society, leftists like you shouldn't be allowed to exist, because your suicidal pro-Islam and anti-west viewpoints are destroying our nations.
In Belgium a newspaper would be formally indicted (i.e. in court) with "inciting racial hate" for writing HALF of what the Daily Mail gets away with.
+TavernSenses And that's a good thing? Freedom of the press is a vital pillar of a free society. The unpleasantness associated with our newspapers is an unfortunate side effect but I wouldn't change it because the alternative is terrifying. Legislation that gave the ability of our political class to crush dissent with costly, drawn out litigation would signal the beginning of the end of free speech and liberty in Britain. If this is the case in Belgium, maybe that explains its appalling problems...
tbone35453 You might have a point
Could you give a single examples of them inciting racial hatred? It should be easy if you are right.
The campaign they have been running for the last few months has been all but inciting violence against LGBT people, they know JUST where to stop short in legal terms, just utter, utter cunts
Then the US is driving on the wrong side of the road Wayne you stupid fuck and a whole lot of other countries as well mindless fuck up
I love the Daily Mail. To hell with the chattering classes. Wrong yesterday, wrong today and wrong tomorrow. Wrong forever.
how is a homosexual a vicar, if i didn't believe in the sanctity of marriage for example could i be a vicar in the c of e ? if so y. i am a Christian
A gay priest....I'm not christian at all, but if you are christian you are supposed to believe the bible, so i guess he will enjoy hell.
+FlackNOR Nah, mental gymnastics to make the bible narrative work with the real world is their forte
God isnt real. But your mind sounds hellish enough tbh
If Zoe Williams wrings her hands any more they'll fall off ; uberGuardanista.